- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Care to explain what you're talking about? The o/p links to the actual text of the bill...
Illegals will be taxed with those "fines" for not carrying insurance, but at the same time they don't get the income-based subsidies. If anything it's a tax on illegals...
Now if you assume there's no catch-all public option (ie if you don't have any proof of insurance, you're going on gov't tab), they won't be able to get non-emergency treatment either.
Please detail exactly what funding to exactly what programs you think provides this. I can't believe I have to do this to you yet again.
- Oct 10, 2000
- 25,696
- 1
- 81
Some 75% of them use stolen ssoc numbers for job apps and have their taxes withheld accordingly. I'm sure the "fines" per the legislatures will be some sort of withholding.
Also from other stuff I've read, most of them don't file taxes which generally comes out as a net plus to us (low income -> they'd get refunds).
Originally posted by: LunarRay
In California we've a law that all autos must be insured.. and uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage...If you don't insure your car you can't register it...
IF there is a penalty provision for not getting on a plan will the government take more of what they already know you have hardly any of... money... and will they not allow you to what... visit hospital in an emergency, have a baby, get sick, die... live??
Yea, in CA we have a law that says you must have LIABILITY insurance. Why? Its not so your car gets fixed when you hit a tree, it won't. Its to cover the damage you cause when you hit someone elses car.
If you really want to compare health insurance to auto insurance, then why doesn't auto insurance cover check-ups (aka oil changes)?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Originally posted by: RedChief
Originally posted by: LunarRay
In California we've a law that all autos must be insured.. and uninsured/underinsured motorist insurance coverage...
IF there is a penalty provision for not getting on a plan will the government take more of what they already know you have hardly any of... money... and will they not allow you to what... visit hospital in an emergency, have a baby, get sick, die... live??
Yea, in CA we have a law that says you must have LIABILITY insurance. Why? Its not so your car gets fixed when you hit a tree, it won't. Its to cover the damage you cause when you hit someone elses car.
If you really want to compare health insurance to auto insurance, then why doesn't auto insurance cover check-ups (aka oil changes)?
Because it is covered under some dealer extended or normal warranty provisions? I don't know why oil changes are not covered but maybe cuz the risk has to do with the car itself and they'd be sure if your car was parked because you 'blew' the engine they'd not have to worry too much about liability issues from you.
The Point IS, however, the legislating of mandatory participation is a very wide gaping ball room. IT is not in law yet. As it is written it is subject to conference amendments and like that. It is said that this mandatory participation will end up affecting only those businesses or citizens who can afford to have it but don't. They have some income levels listed or in mind. It seems that the top 90% of the businesses or people fall under that. They, no doubt, will be covered. They can afford it. Unlike auto insurance mandates, Health care mandates are not universal. They should be in my opinion and funded to insure everyone has insurance even when they can't afford it.. otherwise IMO, we don't have UHC.
Car insurance and health insurance are nothing alike. Until we are willing to let people die for lack of health insurance, they never will be. Since we are not animals, we won't do this, so I see no point in the analogy.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
My anology deals with the MUST have aspects of it and the fact that we have to insure against folks who don't carry it. Our insurance costs are increased thereby. IF everyone did have auto insurance (liability) the unit cost would decrease. Same for Health insurance. I almost would go for manditory health care for all people. Lots of folks for lots of reasons are not going to be covered. They simply can't afford it and like auto insurance they still drive, get sick and the like.
If we can say you must have auto insurance in case of a tort action against you I think we can say you must have health insurance in case of a health action against you...
UHC to me means everyone. IF you can opt out then others pay when you incur the need.
But, I know it would cost money to pay for that and increase the debt and all the other arguments against it. So end of day we'll have more insured with better coverage than today but the poor guy on the corner will still be there uncovered and sick.
Edit: We are not animals, thank goodness, so we'll not let folks die. But we will lets poor folks who can't afford it suffer and even die earlier. For the sake of an antibiotic a person stays home or the lack of a procedure a person becomes disabled and then the fun starts. Welfare, SSD, SSI so we pay for it I guess anyhow. They simply have to wait till they meet the test.
Here are the pertinent parts of the Congressional Research Service report that examined its effect on illegal aliens.
Major points:
H.R. 3200 does not alter law relating to immigrant restrictions on Medicaid
Notably, there is nothing in H.R. 3200 that would alter current law relevant to restrictions on certain categories of aliens (i.e., legal permanent residents within the first five years after entry, nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens) receiving Medicaid.
Certain unauthorized aliens would be required to have health insurance under the individual mandate
Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals?an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a nonresident alien. Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.
Certain unauthorized aliens will not be restricted from participating in and paying for coverage available through the Exchange.
H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens?whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently?participating in and paying for coverage available through the Exchange. However, as discussed above, H.R. 3200 would only mandate that resident aliens would be required to have health insurance.
Unauthorized aliens would be barred from receiving any premium or cost-sharing individual affordability credit.
To be eligible for the credits under §242 of H.R. 3200, individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States, but generally not in the United States temporarily (i.e., nonimmigrants). Nonimmigrantsâ??that is, foreign nationals who are admitted to the United States for a specified period of time and a specific purposeâ??are "lawfully present," but most, with exceptions noted below, would be ineligible for the credits under H.R. 3200. The exceptions for nonimmigrants who could obtain credits under H.R. 3200 would be trafficking victims, crime victims, fiancées of U.S. citizens, and those who have had applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) status pending for three years; these individuals are likely to become LPRs (i.e., immigrants) and remain in the United States permanently. Furthermore, §246 would bar unauthorized aliens from receiving any premium or cost-sharing credit.
The Health Choices Commissioner -- within the executive branch -- will be responsible for determining coverage among members of mixed families as well as for determining the mechanism for verifying immigration status.
In addition, the credits are based on an individual's eligibility, but many tax returns are filed jointly or with dependents. There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not. For example, in a family consisting of a U.S. citizen married to an unauthorized alien and a U.S. citizen child, the U.S. citizen spouse and child could meet the criteria for being a credit-eligible individual, while the unauthorized alien spouse would not meet the criteria. H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.
Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens (e.g, nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens) receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the "individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits." Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits.33
Because the bill extends Medicaid eligibility requirements as they relate to income (but does not change them as they relate to immigrant eligibility), more unauthorized immigrants will become eligible for emergency Medicaid
The bill as reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would extend Medicaid coverage up to 133 1/3% of poverty for populations that previously were not covered (e.g., childless adults and many parents). This extension of benefits could mean an increase in the number of noncitizens who already meet the immigration status requirements for Medicaid eligibility (e.g., refugees, LPRs in the country more than five years) who would be eligible for Medicaid. In addition, this change could also mean that more noncitizens who meet the categorical and income eligibility standards for Medicaid but are barred due to their immigration status (e.g., nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens) would be eligible for emergency Medicaid. Notably, the House Energy and Commerce Committee added a section to H.R. 3200 that reiterates current law that unauthorized aliens are not eligible for full-benefit Medicaid coverage.
Emergency Medicaid defined
Emergency Medicaid may pay for the care of unauthorized aliens, nonimmigrants, and LPRs within the first five years of arrival (or longer if the state does not exercise the option to provide coverage for LPRs after the five years) for emergency conditions if they meet the other eligibility requirements of the Medicaid program. Specifically, aliens who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid except for their immigration status (e.g., unauthorized aliens, nonimmigrants) may receive "medical assistance under Title XIX of the Social Security Act ... for care and emergency services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition (as defined in Section 1903(v)(3) of such Act) of the alien involved and are not related to an organ transplant procedure."
Major points:
- * H.R. 3200 does not alter law relating to immigrant restrictions on Medicaid
* Certain unauthorized aliens will not be restricted from participating in and paying for coverage available through the Exchange.
* Unauthorized aliens would be barred from receiving any premium or cost-sharing individual affordability credit.
* The Health Choices Commissioner -- within the executive branch -- will be responsible for determining coverage among members of mixed families as well as for determining the mechanism for verifying immigration status.
* Because the bill extends Medicaid eligibility requirements as they relate to income (but does not change them as they relate to immigrant eligibility), more unauthorized immigrants will become eligible for emergency Medicaid
* Emergency Medicaid defined
H.R. 3200 does not alter law relating to immigrant restrictions on Medicaid
Notably, there is nothing in H.R. 3200 that would alter current law relevant to restrictions on certain categories of aliens (i.e., legal permanent residents within the first five years after entry, nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens) receiving Medicaid.
Certain unauthorized aliens would be required to have health insurance under the individual mandate
Notably, the IRC does not contain special rules for individuals who are in the United States without authorization (i.e., illegal or unauthorized aliens). Instead, the IRC treats these individuals in the same manner as other foreign nationals?an unauthorized individual who has been in the United States long enough to qualify under the substantial presence test is classified as a resident alien; otherwise, the individual is classified as a nonresident alien. Thus, it would appear that unauthorized aliens who meet the substantial presence test would be required under H.R. 3200 to have health insurance.
Certain unauthorized aliens will not be restricted from participating in and paying for coverage available through the Exchange.
H.R. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens?whether legally or illegally present, or in the United States temporarily or permanently?participating in and paying for coverage available through the Exchange. However, as discussed above, H.R. 3200 would only mandate that resident aliens would be required to have health insurance.
Unauthorized aliens would be barred from receiving any premium or cost-sharing individual affordability credit.
To be eligible for the credits under §242 of H.R. 3200, individuals must be lawfully present in a state in the United States, but generally not in the United States temporarily (i.e., nonimmigrants). Nonimmigrantsâ??that is, foreign nationals who are admitted to the United States for a specified period of time and a specific purposeâ??are "lawfully present," but most, with exceptions noted below, would be ineligible for the credits under H.R. 3200. The exceptions for nonimmigrants who could obtain credits under H.R. 3200 would be trafficking victims, crime victims, fiancées of U.S. citizens, and those who have had applications for legal permanent residence (LPR) status pending for three years; these individuals are likely to become LPRs (i.e., immigrants) and remain in the United States permanently. Furthermore, §246 would bar unauthorized aliens from receiving any premium or cost-sharing credit.
The Health Choices Commissioner -- within the executive branch -- will be responsible for determining coverage among members of mixed families as well as for determining the mechanism for verifying immigration status.
In addition, the credits are based on an individual's eligibility, but many tax returns are filed jointly or with dependents. There could be instances where some family members would meet the definition of an eligible individual for purposes of the credit, while other family members would not. For example, in a family consisting of a U.S. citizen married to an unauthorized alien and a U.S. citizen child, the U.S. citizen spouse and child could meet the criteria for being a credit-eligible individual, while the unauthorized alien spouse would not meet the criteria. H.R. 3200 does not expressly address how such a situation would be treated. Therefore, it appears that the Health Choices Commissioner would be responsible for determining how the credits would be administered in the case of mixed-status families.
Some have expressed concerns that since H.R. 3200 does not contain a mechanism to verify immigration status, the prohibitions on certain noncitizens (e.g, nonimmigrants and unauthorized aliens) receiving the credits may not be enforced. However, others note that under §142(a)(3) of the bill, it is the responsibility of the Health Choices Commissioner (Commissioner) to administer the "individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits." Thus, it appears, absent of a provision in the bill specifying the verification procedure, that the Commissioner would be responsible for determining a mechanism to verify the eligibility of noncitizens for the credits.33
Because the bill extends Medicaid eligibility requirements as they relate to income (but does not change them as they relate to immigrant eligibility), more unauthorized immigrants will become eligible for emergency Medicaid
The bill as reported by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would extend Medicaid coverage up to 133 1/3% of poverty for populations that previously were not covered (e.g., childless adults and many parents). This extension of benefits could mean an increase in the number of noncitizens who already meet the immigration status requirements for Medicaid eligibility (e.g., refugees, LPRs in the country more than five years) who would be eligible for Medicaid. In addition, this change could also mean that more noncitizens who meet the categorical and income eligibility standards for Medicaid but are barred due to their immigration status (e.g., nonimmigrants, unauthorized aliens) would be eligible for emergency Medicaid. Notably, the House Energy and Commerce Committee added a section to H.R. 3200 that reiterates current law that unauthorized aliens are not eligible for full-benefit Medicaid coverage.
Emergency Medicaid defined
Emergency Medicaid may pay for the care of unauthorized aliens, nonimmigrants, and LPRs within the first five years of arrival (or longer if the state does not exercise the option to provide coverage for LPRs after the five years) for emergency conditions if they meet the other eligibility requirements of the Medicaid program. Specifically, aliens who are otherwise eligible for Medicaid except for their immigration status (e.g., unauthorized aliens, nonimmigrants) may receive "medical assistance under Title XIX of the Social Security Act ... for care and emergency services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition (as defined in Section 1903(v)(3) of such Act) of the alien involved and are not related to an organ transplant procedure."
Given that the senate is today deciding to take a deeper look at their bill (I know that's different from HR3200 which is what the CRS reported on) to see if illegals can participate it's certainly a very valid concern if the senators on committee aren't even sure.
-----------
"Mr. Obama's assertion that Democratic health-care proposals wouldn't cover illegal immigrants has prompted Finance Committee members to re-examine their own work. Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.), who is a member of the Gang of Six, said the group is seeking to create a "mechanism" to ensure that illegal immigrants don't receive new benefits as a result of health-care legislation.
"We really thought we'd largely resolved this question of people who are here illegally," Mr. Conrad said, but added that "as we reflected on the president's speech last night, we wanted to go back and drill down again and make sure that what we'd earlier concluded is right on.""
http://online.wsj.com/article/...mod=article-outset-box
You dont. You treat + free plane ride for them and family back to the homeland.
Just like that hospital recently sent an illegal packing after he ran up $1million in hospital bills.
THEY'RE ILLEGAL. How can you charge their "employer" if there is no paper work that says who they work for.
What about all the illegals that go to work sites and get picked up by a contractor with a truck and some lawn mowers? He pays them cash and they go on their way.
Saying you will just charge the employer of the illegals show your niavity of the world and how it really works.
How, you state, you can't keep them out of hospitals, and hospitals can not deny service in the ER. Thus illegals get free service. There's nothing ghoulish about denying someone entrance to a hospital. Go re-read the Constitution and report back where it says that the government is obligated to provide health care.
Simply put, you and your Dem friends want to punish the people that are fending for themselves and paying their own way.
In order for any society to work, there has to be those that have, and those that have not. If you have no motivation to do better in life, then you have no motivation to advance or improve. You essentially make everyone like the people in Wall-E. If everything is done for you, why do anything? Just sit back, get fat and ride around in hover chairs.
What are you babbling about? Who said anything about the Constitution? In case you haven't read it yourself, it empowers Congress to create such laws as it feels are necessary so long as they don't violate other parts of the Constitution. Guess what? Congress, elected by the people, thinks it is necessary. You don't like it? Too bad.
Your caricature of Democrats is stupid. There most certainly is something ghoulish about leaving people to die on your doorstep when you could save them, but you've probably led a very sheltered life and so you're free to make these calls for self reliance from your comfortable chair. (all the while probably never realizing the amount of help that you've been given as a Self Made Man.)
America spoke, and it handed Republicans catastrophic defeats for two elections in a row. I remember hearing something about 'elections having consequences' back when the Republicans were in power. Looks like they were right, huh?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter